PHI 413V Grand Canyon University Week 5 Healing and Autonomy Case Study Analysis Topic for paper: Benchmark Patients Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis In add

PHI 413V Grand Canyon University Week 5 Healing and Autonomy Case Study Analysis Topic for paper: Benchmark Patients Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis

In addition to the topic study materials, use the chart you completed and questions you answered in the Topic 3 about “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” as the basis for your responses in this assignment.

Answer the following questions about a patient’s spiritual needs in light of the Christian worldview.

In 200-250 words, respond to the following: Should the physician allow Mike to continue making decisions that seem to him to be irrational and harmful to James, or would that mean a disrespect of a patient’s autonomy? Explain your rationale.
In 400-500 words, respond to the following: How ought the Christian think about sickness and health? How should a Christian think about medical intervention? What should Mike as a Christian do? How should he reason about trusting God and treating James in relation to what is truly honoring the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence in James’s care?
In 200-250 words, respond to the following: How would a spiritual needs assessment help the physician assist Mike determine appropriate interventions for James and for his family or others involved in his care?

Remember to support your responses with the topic study materials.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. Topic for paper: Benchmark Patients Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis
In addition to the topic study materials, use the chart you completed and questions you answered in
the Topic 3 about “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” as the basis for your responses in this
assignment.
Answer the following questions about a patient’s spiritual needs in light of the Christian worldview.
1. In 200-250 words, respond to the following: Should the physician allow Mike to continue making
decisions that seem to him to be irrational and harmful to James, or would that mean a
disrespect of a patient’s autonomy? Explain your rationale.
2. In 400-500 words, respond to the following: How ought the Christian think about sickness and
health? How should a Christian think about medical intervention? What should Mike as a
Christian do? How should he reason about trusting God and treating James in relation to what is
truly honoring the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence in James’s care?
3. In 200-250 words, respond to the following: How would a spiritual needs assessment help the
physician assist Mike determine appropriate interventions for James and for his family or others
involved in his care?
Remember to support your responses with the topic study materials.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and
documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in
the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
Please Find Case Study and study materials references for answers below: (separate document with
Chart completed and answered questions will be sent separately)
Case Study: Healing and Autonomy
Mike and Joanne are the parents of James and Samuel, identical twins born 8 years ago. James is
currently suffering from acute glomerulonephritis, kidney failure. James was originally brought into the
hospital for complications associated with a strep throat infection. The spread of the A streptococcus
infection led to the subsequent kidney failure. James’s condition was acute enough to warrant
immediate treatment. Usually cases of acute glomerulonephritis caused by strep infection tend to
improve on their own or with an antibiotic. However, James also had elevated blood pressure and
enough fluid buildup that required temporary dialysis to relieve.
The attending physician suggested immediate dialysis. After some time of discussion with Joanne, Mike
informs the physician that they are going to forego the dialysis and place their faith in God. Mike and
Joanne had been moved by a sermon their pastor had given a week ago, and also had witnessed a close
friend regain mobility when she was prayed over at a healing service after a serious stroke. They thought
it more prudent to take James immediately to a faith healing service instead of putting James through
multiple rounds of dialysis. Yet, Mike and Joanne agreed to return to the hospital after the faith healing
services later in the week, and in hopes that James would be healed by then.
Two days later the family returned and was forced to place James on dialysis, as his condition had
deteriorated. Mike felt perplexed and tormented by his decision to not treat James earlier. Had he not
enough faith? Was God punishing him or James? To make matters worse, James’s kidneys had
deteriorated such that his dialysis was now not a temporary matter and was in need of a kidney
transplant. Crushed and desperate, Mike and Joanne immediately offered to donate one of their own
kidneys to James, but they were not compatible donors. Over the next few weeks, amidst daily rounds
of dialysis, some of their close friends and church members also offered to donate a kidney to James.
However, none of them were tissue matches.
James’s nephrologist called to schedule a private appointment with Mike and Joanne. James was stable,
given the regular dialysis, but would require a kidney transplant within the year. Given the desperate
situation, the nephrologist informed Mike and Joanne of a donor that was an ideal tissue match, but as
of yet had not been considered—James’s brother Samuel.
Mike vacillates and struggles to decide whether he should have his other son Samuel lose a kidney or
perhaps wait for God to do a miracle this time around. Perhaps this is where the real testing of his faith
will come in? Mike reasons, “This time around it is a matter of life and death. What could require
greater faith than that?”
STUDY MATERIALS:
Beauchamp, T. L., & DeGrazia, D. (2004). Principles and principlism. In G. Khushf (Ed.),
Philosophy and Medicine: Handbook of bioethics: Taking stock of the field from a
philosophical perspective (Vol. 78). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jonsen, A. R., Siegler, M., & Winslade, W. J. (2010). Clinical ethics: A practical approach to
ethical decisions in clinical medicine (7th Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill
Education/Medical.
Meilaender, G. (2013). Bioethics: A primer for Christians (3rd Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Rae, S. B. (2009). Moral choices: An introduction to ethics (3rd Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan.
Reichman, E. (2005). End of life and sanctity of life. American Medical Association Journal of
Ethics (formerly Virtual Mentor), 7(5), 342-351. Retrieved from
http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2005/05/ccas2-…
Wolterstorff, N. (1994). For justice in Shalom. In W. G. Boulton, T. D. Kennedy, & A. Verhey
(Eds.), From Christ to the world: Introductory readings in Christian ethics (pp. 251-253).
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Shelly, J.A., and Miller, A.B. Called to care: A Christian worldview for nursing. Inter Varsity
Press, 2009. Retrieved from : http://gcumedia.com/digital-resources/intervarsitypress/2006/called-to-care_a-christian-worldview-for-nursing_ebook_2e.php
Name:
Subject: PHI-413V
Date: March 15th, 2020
Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
Part 1: Chart (60 points)
Based on the “Healing and Autonomy” case study, fill out all the relevant boxes below. Provide the information by means of bullet
points or a well-structured paragraph in the box. Gather as much data as possible.
Medical Indications
Patient Preferences
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
Autonomy
Medical indications entail clinical data used in diagnosing
patients to determine the treatment that would be offered to the
patient (Rae, 2009). Beneficence or doing good refers to the
provision of benefits and contributing to the well-being of
people. Nonmaleficence or doing no harm is the obligation
instilled in people not to cause harm with intentions. The term is
used in medical ethics, where physicians are urged not to do
harm (Meilaender, 2013).
Patient preference is regarding the view of a patient or an
alternative decision-maker. For example, James is 8 years old,
and thus most of his decisions will be taken by the parent.
Autonomy is also known as respect for persons. The principle
acknowledges the right of an individual to make decisions, hold
opinions, and take actions from the basis of his or her personal
beliefs and values (Beauchamp and & DeGrazia, 2004). In
relation to the case study, Mike and Joanne decided to make a
choice of not putting James on dialysis. In this case, the couple
From the case study, the aspect of beneficence is evident where
friends and fellow church members of Joanne and Mike offer to decides to rely on their religious faith based on sermons they
donate a kidney to James to facilitate his well-being. Conversely, received a week ago. The reliance on faith is that God will heal
non-maleficence is observed where the physicians decide to put their son James from the kidney problems he experiences.
James on dialysis centrally to his parent’s take. The physician is
forced to make the decision as James’ condition became worse
after he was put out of the dialysis schedule.
Quality of Life
Contextual Features
Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy
Justice and Fairness
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Quality of life consist of medical symptoms displayed by a
patient before and after a treatment regimen. When the
physician decides to put James on dialysis, his condition
deteriorated. However, the condition improved gradually after
resuming dialysis. The physician recommends a kidney
transplant to fully remedy the kidney problem. The appropriate
person to donate the kidney is his twin brother. However, his
father is held between the option of going by the doctor’s advice
or relying on faith. Most notably, the parents in this case should
be fair enough to ensure that James’ welfare becomes the
priority, being that the last time when the parents relied on faith
James’ condition worsened.
Contextual features are social norms or believe that they are
considered before making medical decisions (Wolterstorff,
1994). Justice and fairness refer to the treatment of people
equally and distributing benefits and burdens equally. The
concept can be observed in the case study where the physician
treats the faith of Mike and Joanne in a manner it deserves, thus
becoming fair to them. Similarly, the physician distributes
benefits in a deserving manner to James when he decides to put
him on dialysis to contain the worsening condition.
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Part 2: Evaluation
Answer each of the following questions about how principles would be applied:
1. In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, which of the four
principles is most pressing in this case? Explain why. (45 points)
After analysis of the four principles, the Christian worldview tends to be more pressing on
beneficence. It is evident that the condition of James worries his parents. The parents become more
worried, considering that their son will be put under a series of dialysis to manage the kidney
conditions. Instead of pursuing the medical path of securing the health of their son, the parents being
Christians decide to pursue religious intervention. Fundamentally, the introduction of faith could be
critical in using faith to heal their son. Additionally, the decision is motivated by the sermon the
parents received a week before. Another incident of faith, according to Mike and Joanne, was the
faith intervention that led to the healing of a person who suffered from a stroke. For that purpose, the
parents decided to rely on faith in causing healing to their ailing son. After a while, the condition of
James worsens. The issue causes a faith test to the couple being that their prayers were perceived to
have born no fruits. In this regard, they decided to take James back to the hospital to seek a medical
intervention move. The question that arises here is whether the prayers could have worked if James
himself had faith (Reichman, 2005). The parents seemingly continue to build on religion as church
members offer to donate a kidney to James.
2. In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how might a
Christian rank the priority of the four principles? Explain why. (45 points)
The perspective of Christian ranking of the four principles would be: beneficence, nonmaleficence,
justice, and autonomy, respectively. Beneficence entails the care and love the parents show towards
their children. The parents seek to make decisions that uphold the well-being of the children. Like the
case of James, the first move is taken to ensure that James becomes well. However, the decision taken
by Christians can be challenged but only in cases where they tend to have detriments of somewhat
(Jonsen et al., 2010). Nonmaleficence is evident as the Christian parents would strive to ensure that
they do not pose any potential harm to their children. In this case, the parents are less likely to make
decisions that would possibly harm their children. Although rare, when harm occurs, it results from
the unintentional choice taken without prior knowledge. Therefore, justice is ranked third, because
Christianity is founded on fairness, but human life comes first. Also, justice basically entails the
aspect of making a fair decision that will be favorable to James’ condition. As observed, James’
parents thought that it would be fair enough to stick to their religion. The principle of autonomy can
be related to beneficence only that Christians would arguably rank it last. Autonomy being ranked
last as Christians offer others the right to make their independent decisions (Reichman, 2005). The
Christians would let people make their decisions based on their faith and what would have benefits for
them with minimal or no interference.
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
References:
Beauchamp, T. L., & DeGrazia, D. (2004). Principles and principlism. In G. Khushf (Ed.),
Philosophy and Medicine: Handbook of bioethics: Taking stock of the field from a
philosophical perspective (Vol. 78). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jonsen, A. R., Siegler, M., & Winslade, W. J. (2010). Clinical ethics: A practical approach to
ethical decisions in clinical medicine (7th Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill
Education/Medical.
Meilaender, G. (2013). Bioethics: A primer for Christians (3rd Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Rae, S. B. (2009). Moral choices: An introduction to ethics (3rd Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan.
Reichman, E. (2005). End of life and sanctity of life. American Medical Association Journal of
Ethics (formerly Virtual Mentor), 7(5), 342-351. Retrieved from
http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2005/05/ccas2-…
Wolterstorff, N. (1994). For justice in Shalom. In W. G. Boulton, T. D. Kennedy, & A. Verhey
(Eds.), From Christ to the world: Introductory readings in Christian ethics (pp. 251-253).
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
PHI-413V Topic 3 Overview
Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative
Introduction
Bioethics is a subfield of ethics that concerns the ethics of medicine and ethical issues in
the life sciences raised by the advance of technology. The issues dealt with tend to be
complex and controversial (i.e., abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia). There have
been several approaches to the theory and methodology of ethical decision-making in
bioethics, but this discussion will focus on what is likely the most influential approach
called principlism, which stresses the application of four moral principles to all ethical
decisions in health care. A practical tool, commonly used by ethicists and hospital ethic
committees, known as the “four-boxes approach” will be introduced as a way to
organize hard cases and appropriately apply the four principles. Principlism and the
four-boxes approach will be used and interpreted in light of the Christian worldview and
the overarching narrative presented in the Bible.
Principlism
Principlism is often referred to as the “four-principle approach” because of its view that
there are four ethical principles that are the framework of bioethics. These four
principles are the following, as spelled out by Tom L. Beauchamp and David DeGrazia
(2004):
1. Respect for autonomy – A principle that requires respect for the decisionmaking capacities of autonomous persons.
2. Nonmaleficence – A principle requiring that people not cause harm to others.
3. Beneficence – A group of principles requiring that people prevent harm, provide
benefits, and balance benefits against risks and costs.
4. Justice – A group of principles requiring fair distribution of benefits, risks, and
costs. (p. 57)
While these principles will guide ethical decision-making, they only provide a general
and abstract framework for thinking about particular ethical cases. Other information is
required before one can make a concrete ethical decision. First, one must specify the
particular context and details of a case or dilemma in order to concretely apply these
principles and arrive at concrete action-guiding results (i.e., individuals need to know
how to apply these principles to specific cases and circumstances).
Second, one must figure out how each of the four principles ought to be weighed in a
particular case. One needs to determine which of the four principles deserves the most
priority in any given case, especially in cases in which there are conflicts between the
principles. The details of a specific case as well as the way in which principles are
weighed and prioritized necessarily involves discussion of worldview. This is because a
patient’s preferences will involve his or her worldview, and because different
worldviews would rank the importance and priority of principles differently. Thus, one
might approach the four principles from a Buddhist perspective, or an Islamic
perspective, or an atheistic perspective and achieve vastly different results. When one
utilizes the principlist approach to bioethical dilemmas, it will always also incorporate
broader worldview considerations and never be purely neutral or unbiased. In order to
understand how the Christian worldview would apply the principles, it is important to
understand the grand story told in the Bible that Christians believe describes reality.
The Christian Biblical Narrative
While it is not possible to survey every possible religion, the description below will at
least attempt to do justice to the biblical narrative and Judeo-Christian tradition.
The Bible is a collection of 66 books written over thousands of years in several different
languages and in different genres (e.g., historical narrative, poetry, letters, prophecy),
yet there is an overarching story, or big picture, which is referred to as the Christian
biblical narrative. The Christian biblical narrative is often summarized as the story of the
creation, fall, redemption, and restoration of human beings (and more accurately this
includes the entire created order). Concepts such as sin, righteousness, and shalom
provide a framework by which the Christian worldview understands the concepts of
health and disease.
Briefly, consider the following summary of each of the four parts of the grand Christian
story:
Creation
According to Christianity, the Christian God is the creator of everything that exists (Gen.
1-2 NIV). There is nothing that exists that does not have God as its creator. In
Christianity, there is a clear distinction between God and the creation. Creation includes
anything that is not God—the universe and everything in it, including human beings.
Thus, the universe itself and all human beings were created. The act of creating by God
was intentional. In this original act of creation, everything exists on purpose, not
accidentally or purely randomly, and it is good. When God describes his act of creating,
and the creation itself as good—among other things—it not only means that it is
valuable and that God cares for it, but that everything is the way it is supposed to be.
There is an order to creation, so to speak, and everything is how it ought to be. This
state of order and peace is described by the term Shalom. Yale theologian Nicholas
Wolterstorff (1994) describes Shalom as, “the human being dwelling at peace in all his
or her relationships: With God, with self, with fellows, with nature” (p. 251).
The Fall
Sometime after the creation, there occurred an event in human history in which this
created order was broken. In Genesis 3, the Bible describes this event as a fundamental
act of disobedience to God. The disobedience of Adam and Eve is referred to as the fall,
because, among other things, it was their rejection of God’s rule over them and it
resulted in a break in Shalom. According to the Bible, the fall had universal implications.
Sin entered into the world through the fall, and with it, spiritual and physical death. This
break in Shalom has affected the creation ever since; death, d…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment